Replication question

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am replicating 5 tables from Server A to Server B. On my first setting, I
included those 5 tables on a single publisher. After that, I recognize when a
table schema changes, I needed to drop and re-create the publishication,
means all 5 tables needed to re-synchronize again, is that true? Will it be
better to create 5 different publishication with each for one table only, so
during recreate publishication, only one table needed to synchronize, more
flexible? What the disadvantage for that?
Another question is, during recreate of one publishication, what is the
sequence of action? Is that stop log reader first, then recreate the one of
the publishication, generate snapshot, distribute the snapshot and finially
restart the log reader? Would this action sequence can make sure the
synchonize of those 5 tables?
Waiting to hearing from you soon. Many thanks!
Yours sincerely,
Henry
I would use sp_repladdcolumn or sp_repldropcolumn for this. SQL 20005 has
better options to replication schema changes seemelessly, otherwise if you
have a lot of changes to our schema you might want to think about log
shipping.
Splitting each article out into a seperate publication is a good idea when
sp_repladdcolumn and sp_repldropcolumn can't do the changes you are
looking for - for instance modifiying pk's. It is also a good idea when
your tables are large as if your snapshot fails on one table you will have
to replicate all tables again.
In general you shoudl group your tables into their own publications by DRI.
The way replication works is that the publication tables are locked and
then the log reader agent starts. Users can't make changes to tables until
the data is bcp'd out. Then when the data is bcp'd out the lock is
released and users changes are written to the tlog (as always) and the log
reader will read the transactions in the log and build commands to
replicate these transactions to the subscriber.
This way all the transactions are replicated and nothing is missed.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com

Replication not working for a single table. Help!

I have Merge Replication setup between the server and a handfull of
tablets. All of the tables are setup identically; however, one table
has stopped merging. When an update is made on the disconnected
subscriber, and replication occurs the data is replicated to the server
but removed from the tablet. this occurs for all subscribers, and only
for one table. All other tables replicate perfectly.
I am using SQL Server 2000 SP4 and MSDE on the Tablets.
Are there any filters on the table, or joins, which distinguish it from the
other tables?
Cheers,
Paul Ibison
<salois@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133978551.599854.154420@.g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>I have Merge Replication setup between the server and a handfull of
> tablets. All of the tables are setup identically; however, one table
> has stopped merging. When an update is made on the disconnected
> subscriber, and replication occurs the data is replicated to the server
> but removed from the tablet. this occurs for all subscribers, and only
> for one table. All other tables replicate perfectly.
> I am using SQL Server 2000 SP4 and MSDE on the Tablets.
>
|||No Joins or relationships either
|||It sounds a bit like compensating changes
(http://support.microsoft.com/default...&Product=sql2k)
but what confuses me is that you say the change can be replicated centrally
ie it remains there. Hopefully I have misunderstood you and it can't be
commited at the publisher, in which case the above link will explain it. If
this isn't it, and there are no filters or joins, then are there any messages
from the merge agent or the conflict viewer that give more info?
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)